One of my co-workers referred to it as the G6 + 1, as one of the seven participating nations has acted antagonistically towards the other. That nation has been singled out for special attention at the summit. The other six nations want to know WHY that nation has acted, as it has, in a hostile manner toward the others.

So it's not 7 nations, its 6

​against

1. There are

​ really two groups

, and this is a real-life version of what is known in game theory as "The Prisoner's Dilemma", which explains why it is not in the best interest of the six to ignore the actions of the other.

The issue is protectionist trade tariffs. One of the nations in the G7 acted aggressively toward the others in imposing

​trade tariffs on imports from the others,

in the expectation, probably, that those nations would not retaliate in kind. To do so would mean a loss for everyone. But here's the thing: game theory would say that

​failing

to retaliate would mean

​ that​

the one nation who acted as a foe of the other six will pick up ALL the money on the table

​, and emerge the ONLY winner of the game.​

​

​

However if, at this summit, all parties agree to co-operate

​ ​

in dropping

​

tariffs, instituting free trade, they

​ ​

​​

all

​will ​

reap benefits from

​ ​

that free

​ ​

trade.

​ ​

The one nation that has decided to act like an enemy of the others is betting that timidity will keep those other nations from calling this what it really is, hostility, and from calling that nation what it is, an enemy.

​Which is why this summit is so important. Will six defer to one, or will they stand united against the rogue nation?